Tommy Robinson Bailed after appeal win.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: ScepticScot

What a person says and does.
Robinson's criminal record, I have no issue with. The actual crimes were minor and not much of a problem.
As for racist organisations and tweets, you obviously have little idea of what racism is or what Tommy Robinson is about, which I knew anyway from your previous posts. I am sure the Sun has you well informed, though...

To be honest, now I know that is where you get your information from, there's not much point in debating with you.

Assault (including against a police officer) and fraud are minor offences?

You are claiming the BNP aren't a racist organisation???

a reply to: ScepticScot

I am claiming, correctly, that being a member of the BNP does not make a person racist.

Fraud charge for a £160k mortgage .. pfft. He got a loan by bending the truth. Wow. I see more nefarious shenanigans from people advising others how to cheat on benefits. These are hardly the serious crimes that we should be worried about. He got caught - took his punishment. End of. Not something I am going to judge a person on for the rest of their lives.

Assault - fights happen. Some win, some lose. I've seen him involved in many fights - often defending himself. He was a football hooligan, so no doubt he was the aggressor on many occasions. Pretty unsavoury actually, but ten to a penny at the time. I didn't see him assault an off-duty officer, so I can't comment.

I see him as a pretty rough character that I wouldn't really want to spend any time with. Nothing unique about him, but I view him as a step above those that would exaggerate and lie to make him out to be Satan because they either have an agenda to push or are just too dumb to read past the Sun. He is certainly a better human being than those types.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: ScepticScot

I am claiming, correctly, that being a member of the BNP does not make a person racist.

Fraud charge for a £160k mortgage .. pfft. He got a loan by bending the truth. Wow. I see more nefarious shenanigans from people advising others how to cheat on benefits. These are hardly the serious crimes that we should be worried about. He got caught - took his punishment. End of. Not something I am going to judge a person on for the rest of their lives.

Assault - fights happen. Some win, some lose. I've seen him involved in many fights - often defending himself. He was a football hooligan, so no doubt he was the aggressor on many occasions. Pretty unsavoury actually, but ten to a penny at the time. I didn't see him assault an off-duty officer, so I can't comment.

I see him as a pretty rough character that I wouldn't really want to spend any time with. Nothing unique about him, but I view him as a step above those that would exaggerate and lie to make him out to be Satan because they either have an agenda to push or are just too dumb to read past the Sun. He is certainly a better human being than those types.

He is a proven liar and a thug and you continue to support him.

Being a member of the BNP makes you a racist, an idiot or both.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Lol, sounds like you lost the argument and are just blurting.
Oh by the way, it's all coming out now - Robinson did not plead guilty after all - that was a media lie, but given you educate yourself with the Sun newspaper, I am not surprised you fell for it and regurgitated it. Oh, and it also turns out he was reading a BBC article outside the court - an article that still exists, which means the judge has zero right to deem what Robinson was saying as contempt of court. He was saying what was already in the public domain. You got suckered by the media you love - everything you spouted off about at the time and now is based on lies. How embarrassing for you.

a reply to: UKTruth

I'd be more embarrassed if I were sticking up for a criminal thug with racist affiliations

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: UKTruth

I'd be more embarrassed if I were sticking up for a criminal thug with racist affiliations

That's quite an insightful post, though you probably didn't realise it.
Rather than be upset at media lies that Robinson pled guilty and further lies that he was endangering the trial, you'd rather focus on your view of his character. That was the problem in the first place. A man put in jail because the judge didn't like him. We don't want that kind of fascist judiciary in this country, thanks. Fortunately, the appeals court agrees with me - and like myself discounted his character and focused on the law.

I don't particularly like Robinson, but he's still worth ten of the type of people who would cheer on the undermining of justice because they don't like the person wronged. That kind of person is the real scum bag.

a reply to: UKTruth

I would be impressed if he actually did something to stop these rapist scum ,as it stands all he has done is hinder the legal process.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: ScepticScot

Lol, sounds like you lost the argument and are just blurting.
Oh by the way, it's all coming out now - Robinson did not plead guilty after all - that was a media lie, but given you educate yourself with the Sun newspaper, I am not surprised you fell for it and regurgitated it. Oh, and it also turns out he was reading a BBC article outside the court - an article that still exists, which means the judge has zero right to deem what Robinson was saying as contempt of court. He was saying what was already in the public domain. You got suckered by the media you love - everything you spouted off about at the time and now is based on lies. How embarrassing for you.

Really how have I lost any argument?

If your assertion is true (and you haven't provided any evidence) that he didn't plead guilty why would I be remotely embarrassed? You believed he had pled guilty as you made excuses for why he would do so? Are you embarrassed?

Was he reading the BBC article for the entire hour if the broadcast? I know neither he nor his supporters are that bright but that seems a tad slow reading pace even for them.

You seem utterly confused by what has happened. The appeal has just dulled the process followed was to rushed and so he has to be re tried. That means what he did is still chargeable as contempt of court.

I don't get my news from the sun. the ' christ even the sun' comment might have been a tad too subtle for you I guess.

Hopenotfear is entirely correct about what is really embarrassing. You posts have made it entirely clear you support Robinson and his agenda and that has nothing to do with the trial.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: UKTruth

I would be impressed if he actually did something to stop these rapist scum ,as it stands all he has done is hinder the legal process.

The appeals court certainly did hinder the process...of a disgusting judge who undermined justice in our lands.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I support justice for all citizens, equally applied.
It has been clear from your media fuelled character assassinations that you do not, which is why you started on the wrong side of the argument and remain there.

Robinson will not go back to jail because he did nothing wrong, which was obvious at the time.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: UKTruth

I would be impressed if he actually did something to stop these rapist scum ,as it stands all he has done is hinder the legal process.

The appeals court certainly did hinder the process...of a disgusting judge who undermined justice in our lands.

If you feel you are above the law that's on you, Im well aware of the corruption in law enforcement and government as a whole, I have learned to live with it. There are plenty of lawless countries that would welcome your ideology so feel free to move...

originally posted by: UKTruth
Robinson will not go back to jail because he did nothing wrong, which was obvious at the time.

However, back in reality, Robinson did do something wrong.

Update yourself - read the court documents...

His release was based on a judgement that the Leeds hearing was too rapid. He is released on bail and will face a retrial. That retrial may end up in him being sent back to prison, or not. To quote the summary...

The court agrees that the judge should not have commenced the hearing of contempt proceedings that day. Once the appellant had removed the video from Facebook, there was no longer sufficient urgency to justify immediate proceedings [62]. In those circumstances it would have been preferable to adjourn, as had happened in the Canterbury proceedings.

Summary of judgement opens in a PDF

a reply to: paraphi

Back in the actual reality we live in, Robinson is innocent until proven guilty. If, and only if, he is found guilty then we can say he did something wrong to the extent he should be punished. Given he was not saying anything not already in the public record and given it is wholly correct to assume innocence, I will maintain my position that he did nothing wrong. A position grounded in the assumption of innocence and the facts as I see them.

The situation is clear. He is accused of breaking the law whilst also being offered the recognition that the judge who sent him to jail was wrong and perverted the course of justice.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: UKTruth

I would be impressed if he actually did something to stop these rapist scum ,as it stands all he has done is hinder the legal process.

The appeals court certainly did hinder the process...of a disgusting judge who undermined justice in our lands.

If you feel you are above the law that's on you, Im well aware of the corruption in law enforcement and government as a whole, I have learned to live with it. There are plenty of lawless countries that would welcome your ideology so feel free to move...

I think my ideology of justice for all and a fair trial with the proper process is fully compatible with the UK - at least according to our laws. The sick fascist ideology that would send people to jail because one doesn't like that person is not, however, compatible with the UK. That is more akin to a police state or some radical #hole in the middle east. Whilst there seem to be some that would welcome such an ideology to the UK, for now we maintain our laws and it was a delight to see the appeals court provide some much-needed confidence in our judicial system - and 'hinder the process' you love. You don't need to wait for that kind of system, though. Tickets to places like Iran are cheap.

a reply to: UKTruth

Yet you are the one insisting we should subvert the law.... Feel free to take your own advice.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: UKTruth

Yet you are the one insisting we should subvert the law.... Feel free to take your own advice.

How would a fair trial be subverting the law?
The judge who put Robinson in jail has been rightfully rebuked, yet you think the appeals court was 'hindering the process'

originally posted by: UKTruth
Back in the actual reality we live in, Robinson is innocent until proven guilty.

Absolutely. Yet he has already been found guilty of contempt. The retrial was ordered because legal process was not followed and yes, he may be proven innocent, but only of the latest legal problem and not the previous.

a reply to: UKTruth

Sending people to jail has nothing to do with likes, that's facebook, the law is simple you break it you suffer.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: UKTruth

Yet you are the one insisting we should subvert the law.... Feel free to take your own advice.

How would a fair trial be subverting the law?
The judge who put Robinson in jail has been rightfully rebuked, yet you think the appeals court was 'hindering the process'

No the hindrance was created through breaking the law by trying to stream the events... It's not rocket science.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Like I said - the scum of this country are the people who proclaim a man guilty before a trial because they don't like him. Thanks for making my point.